Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Yesterday, first day of the Intermediate Days of the holiday (chol hamoed) I traveled to Bet Shemesh to visit family.

On my mother's side, the Shtecklers who came from Brody, there were 7 siblings. Four came to America. My grandmother, Sarah, died when my mother was about 12 and my grandfather went back to Brody in 1932 where he married Regina. The oldest sister was Netta or Nesha. She had three children, one of whom was Stanley Sacks. His two children, Ruthy and Mindy are my second cousins. One lives in Efrat and the other now in Bet Shemesh.

Her son, Moshe, recently got married and they visited from the States which brings me back to the beginning, my visit to them.

In preparation for this year’s gathering, Mr. Lesser and others have again been collecting recipes from the guests, including matzo ball instructions from Patricia Winter, the mother of Melissa Winter, Mrs. Obama’s deputy chief of staff.

“We like soft (not hard) matzo balls,” Mrs. Winter warned in a note to the White House chefs, instructing them to buy mix but doctor it. Use three eggs, not two, she told them; substitute schmaltz for vegetable oil, and refrigerate them for a day before serving (but not in the soup).

U.S. seeks 4-month E. J'lem building freeze in exchange for direct talks

One of the U.S. administration's requests to Israel regarding the peace process with the Palestinians is a four-month construction freeze in all parts of East Jerusalem. In exchange, the United States would pressure Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold direct talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of the indirect talks the Palestinians have agreed to.

An official in Jerusalem said the U.S. administration is demanding that Israel freeze construction in East Jerusalem, including Jewish neighborhoods such as Neveh Yaakov, French Hill and of course Ramat Shlomo, which sparked the recent tensions between Israel and the United States.

The freeze would last four months, the time frame the Arab League has authorized for indirect talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

If, for a 10-month suspension in Judea and Samaria we got bupkas, why should we go another 4 in Jerusalem's over-the-Green Line neighborhoods?

What proximity talks? Where are they taking place?

All that happened was that the Arabs have our suspension for nothing and demand more for face-to-face, which we already had?

While not everything in this poll makes me happy, and needs further study, this item surely does:

The study, conducted at the beginning of the month by the university's Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, found that...Although a majority of Israeli Jews [60% - YM] support a settlement withdrawal, only a third of respondents said such an evacuation has the support of the majority...

In other words, Israel is a democratic society and even the majority thinks they are wrong.

...last night, the two [adopted children David and Mercy] were at the centre of their adopted family as they celebrated the Jewish festival of Passover. Along with older siblings Lourdes and Rocco, their mother Madonna and her boyfriend Jesus Luz, the family arrived at the Kabbalah Centre in London.

He transcribed an interview George Mitchell gave in January 2010, where he indicates he has no problem with the Israelis building in Jerusalem.

The exchange:

GEORGE MITCHELL: Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is let's get into negotiations. Let's deal with the issues and come up with the solution to all of them including Jerusalem which will be exceedingly difficult but, in my judgment, possible. The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in, or construction in East Jerusalem. They don't regard that as a settlement because they think it's part of Israel. …

CHARLIE ROSE: So you're going to let them go ahead even though no one recognizes the annexation?

MITCHELL: You say "Let them go ahead." It's what they regard as their country. They don't say they're letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan.

It fell to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to play the role Khrushchev once played in toughening a young American president.

The former Soviet leader thought he could browbeat Kennedy only to discover, in Vienna, that the Kennedy charm was not unalloyed to steel (“It will be a long, cold winter.”) Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to think he could steamroll Obama. He earned a frosty comeuppance.

The Israeli leader toyed with Obama’s unequivocal call in Cairo last June for a “stop” to Israeli settlements. He allowed the ill-timed announcement that 1,600 apartments for Jews will be built in East Jerusalem. Then, rather than scrap that, Netanyahu chose cheap cheers from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee with “Jerusalem is not a settlement.”

You notices this, right?

He allowed the ill-timed announcement that 1,600 apartments for Jews will be built in East Jerusalem.

He allowed?

Or did opposition forces leak the news to the anti-Bibi Israeli media and it was they who set up the confrontation?

And did Bibi "toy" with the call for a halt in Jewish reclamation of its national land or did he say, and as Hillary Clinton noted, that it was unprecedented to stop construction while negotiations are on as they are a final status issue and since the Arabs had negotiated while construction was preceding for decades?

Is Cohen slightly subverting the facts and the history of which he writes?

And he revives the falsehood attributed to the US military establishment:

Americans, prodded by a report from Gen. David Petraeus, are beginning to see the link between terror recruitment and a festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Planning in Washington on Iran has shown a “marked shift in thinking away from the war strategy,” as Nicholas Burns, a former top State Department official, put it to me.

Is no war - as if there has been a war vs. Iran strategy ever - how does America intend effectively to halt nuclear proliferation?

In his Passover missive, Ben Ami divides the Jewish world in two, describing it as a “struggle developing between two camps with radically different visions of Jewish expression in the 21st century.” According to Ben-Ami, it’s “us” or “them.” There are no shades of grey? How Jewish is that?

“On one side of this struggle,” Ben Ami continues,” are those committed to our vision of time-honored Jewish and democratic values - grounded in respect for ‘the other,’ a tolerance for dissent, and a willingness to sacrifice territory for peace.”

Notice Ben-Ami has no respect for “the other” when she/he is a Jew. It's all "we" and "they." And since when is surrender a "time-honored Jewish value?" Look how divisive Ben-Ami is in the next section:

“On the other side,” says Ben-Ami, “are those who seem willing to muffle dissent, view all conflict as zero-sum, and place retaining captured land and territory at the center of its value system.”

What intolerance! Anyone who opposes J Street as well as the Israelis who democratically vote for what they perceive as best for Israel are depicted as fascist. Don’t forget that territory was given up by right-wingers Menachem Begin and Binyamin Netanyahu when they negotiated directly with real partners for peace. Barak and Sharon surrendered territory to terrorists and got rockets in return from Lebanon and Gaza.

“As a people,” Ben-Ami concludes, “do we line up with those who seek to hang on to all of "Greater Israel" and watch our Jewish and democratic values erode in Israel and in our community, or do we stand up urgently for territorial compromise and for behavior in Israel and in our community that reflects our cherished and long-held values? … We're in a larger and more significant battle over who we are as a people in this new century and how our people are defined collectively for ourselves and for others by the behavior of the country that serves as our national expression.”

What an anti-democratic diatribe by Ben-Ami. His “we” should decide Israel’s values and behavior! He's upset because Israel's behavior will define him, a Newest Testament Jew, living in Washington.

That "Torah" of Ben-Ami is, of course, chametz-torah.

Chametz is forbidden on Pesach and we are prohibited even from benefiting from its usage or ownership. It should be either burnt, hidden away and/or sold depending on its status.

The settlement issue is an old source of tension between America and Israel. For Barack Obama, US president, it has emerged as the greatest obstacle to his goal of resolving Israeli-Palestinian differences through meaningful negotiations. As the Obama administration ponders a new Middle East peace plan, it needs a new direction on settlements that both Israelis and Palestinians can live with.

The international community is agreed that a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in a two-state land-for-peace settlement on the basis of the pre-1967 boundaries. Yet a fallacy persists, that somehow these two states should be ethnically pure: that Israel should be uniquely Jewish, and Palestine uniquely Arab.

What he is suggesting is that we revenants can stay in "Palestine" and the "Pal. refugees" can go to Israel.

But I think the entire Arab population in pre-1967 Israel borders are the target population that should be required to match our predicament.

If we have to move, they should move to "Palestine" if it be established.

“Food and feasts were a part of life for us,” said Angella Nazarian, one of Mrs. Maddahi’s daughters, who has just published a memoir of the Iranian Jews’ arrival in the United States, titled “Life as a Visitor” (Assouline Publishing). “Jewish people never do anything without food. There needs to be plenty and varied dishes fit for a party of 100 people in order to really call it a dinner party — even if only 20 people are invited.”

The War and Peace Index is written by Prof. Tamar Hermann and Prof. Ephraim Yaar, and funded by the Evans Program for Conflict Resolution Research of Tel Aviv University and The Israel Democracy Institute. The telephone interviews were conducted by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on March 15-17, 2010, and included 505 interviewees who represent the adult population of Israel (including the territories and the kibbutzim). The sampling error for a sample of this size is 4.5%.

“If the settlements were the last obstacle to reaching a full peace agreement with the Palestinians and the agreement of all the Arab states to an end of their conflict with Israel, would you then support an evacuation of all of the settlements?”

It turns out the public is almost evenly split on this matter: 42% responded positively and 47.5% negatively. A segmentation of the positions on this question by voting for the Knesset in 2009 reveals extreme gaps between the voters for the different parties. Only among Meretz, Labor, and Kadima voters is there a majority that accepts a full evacuation Sharp gaps also emerged when segmenting the answers by respondents’ degree of support or opposition to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Among those favoring negotiations the gap is relatively small: 48% are prepared for a full evacuation in return for a full peace and the end of the conflict, while 40% are against it. However, among those who oppose negotiations only 21% favor a full evacuation compared to 75% who oppose it.

Presenting the same question with regard to evacuation of a substantial portion of the settlements (and not all of them) in return for a peace agreement and the end of the conflict, a considerable majority of supporters, 58%, emerged versus 29% for opponents. These findings are consistent with the erosion in the settlements’ status that has occurred among the Jewish public over time. To the question “When you think today about the establishment of the settlements in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, in your opinion was it right or not right for Israeli governments to enable their construction?” — 47% answered that it was right and 40% said it was not. When the same question was presented a decade ago (June 2001), 63% answered that it was right to build the settlements and 28% that it was not. In this period, then, there was a decline of 16% for those who think it was right to build the settlements.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are delighted to welcome the foreign minister to Washington again, and to have this opportunity to discuss matters of great concern to us bilaterally as well as to receive an update about the progress in the discussions going on concerning Cyprus. Certainly, there’s a great deal of support for the UN-sponsored mediation, and we’re hopeful that we can see progress. And we’re delighted you’re here.

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)S.1322

One Hundred Fourth Congressof theUnited States of AmericaAT THE FIRST SESSIONBegun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-fiveAn Act

To provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress `strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected'.

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

(11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of `final status' issues, including Jerusalem.

(12) The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.

(13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging `planning to begin now' for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.

(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem `should take place no later than . . . 1999'.

(15) The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16) The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.

(a) STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES-

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

(b) OPENING DETERMINATION- Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for `Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad' may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.

SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.

(a) FISCAL YEAR 1996- Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for `Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

(b) FISCAL YEAR 1997- Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for `Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall include--

(1) estimated dates of completion for each phase of the establishment of the United States Embassy, including site identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; and

(2) an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this Act, including all costs associated with establishing the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 6. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS.

At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.

SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

(a) WAIVER AUTHORITY- (1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section 3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(2) The President may suspend such limitation for an additional six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension is in effect under this subsection if the President determines and reports to Congress in advance of the additional suspension that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(3) A report under paragraph (1) or (2) shall include--

(A) a statement of the interests affected by the limitation that the President seeks to suspend; and

(B) a discussion of the manner in which the limitation affects the interests.

(b) APPLICABILITY OF WAIVER TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- If the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection (a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section 3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b) except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the authority in subsection (a).

SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

As used in this Act, the term `United States Embassy' means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Friday, March 26, 2010

"Kleinism" represents a simplistic, artificial view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has led many who consider themselves human-rights activists to focus their criticism nearly exclusively on Israel. It brands Israel as the new apartheid state, so it can do no right and its adversaries no wrong. It frames Israel as uninterested in peace or in ending the occupation. It ignores any structural obstacles to peace unrelated to Israel, the most obvious being the sharp divisions among the Palestinians.

Thus, "Kleinists" seem to have concluded that one-sided criticism of Israel is the best way to promote peace, and that pressurizing the state with all available means, including BDS, is both legitimate and effective.

As a result, Israel's branding as a violent, aggressive and discriminatory state is increasingly gaining traction...

As we mark a year to the Netanyahu government’s swear-in ceremony, we can declare that the 2009 revolution amounted to new government appointments, rather than refreshed principles. Olmert left, thank God, yet his legacy remained: The two-state solution, a settlement freeze, and a gradually adaptation to America’s caprices.

The new Likud government did not contribute even one new neighborhood to Jerusalem. In fact, it is the first government ever in Israel to wholly paralyze construction in Maale Adumim and to close a hesder yeshiva. The government’s handling of the Qassam problem in the south is reminiscent of the Olmert government’s conduct ahead of Operation Cast Lead. The defense minister is the same defense minister...

The overwhelming majority of Likud members are quiet, as their leader leads them towards a terminal ideological collapse. From one speech to the next, he eliminates the remains of the ideology left in the party in the wake of the Sharon era...In the next elections, the Likud will not be able to draft a platform that would distinguish it from Kadima and from the Labor party.

Netanyahu's spokesman Nir Hafetz on Friday morning said that the prime minister reached understandings with Obama regarding continued construction in east Jerusalem.

In an interview with Army Radio, he added that Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Netanyahu agree on these issues and assessed that the inner cabinet will support the understandings reached in Washington.

"There are several steps that the Americans would like to see Israel take in order to restart the peace process. We returned from the US with the understanding that on one hand, the construction policy in Jerusalem will remain unchanged, and on the other hand, Israel is prepared to make gestures in order to resume the peace process," Hefetz said.

The main point of contention between Netanyahu and Obama, Hefetz confirmed, was the US demand that Israel extend the ten-month West Bank building moratorium.

Netanyahu's spokesman rejected reports that Obama demanded that the Palestinian Authority be given control over east Jerusalem's Abu Dis neighborhood.

You'll recall, in connection with this

The main point of contention between Netanyahu and Obama, Hefetz confirmed, was the US demand that Israel extend the ten-month West Bank building moratorium.

that I made the point in November that if Netanyahu presumes that if the Arabs come to the negotiating table and after the ten months that he'll be allowed to lift the construction suspension he's fooling himself.

Not only because it is in color - it's from the set of "Some Like It Hot" which was filmed in black and white - and not only because it includes two Jews (okay, Marilyn was a convert and not through the Orthodox tradition) and not only because of Ms. Monroe's profile but because of a story concerning the guy on the left, Mr. Bernard Schwartz.

You see, in my family oral tradition, my Aunt Selma, my late mother's youngest sister, who now lives in New Jersey, when a young teenager in The Bronx was given a ride in the basket of the bicycle of the person who delivered the local groceries around the neighborhood.

Judith Shulevitz, a deeply intelligent journalist in her forties dissatisfied with the frenzied quality of modern life, decided to work up the tradition and practice of the Sabbath, the day of rest. It is an intellectual quest fired by a fierce desire to know, to change her life. Shulevitz displays her learning not to show off but to bring the news to an audience that she suspects has, like her, lost touch with the great tradition. In personal terms, and without sanctimony, she explores the history of the Sabbath, its philosophical foundations, its consolations, its purposes, and, in doing so, writes a swift, penetrating book intent on shattering the habits of mindless workaholism and the inability to recognize the blessings of rest, reflection, spirit, and family.

"We have warned repeatedly that Israel is playing with fire, and Jordan rejects and condemns all measures aimed at changing the identity of Jerusalem and the displacement of its Christian and Muslim Arab population,"

Sir, it was your great-grandfather and father (sorry, your grandfather was institutionalized so he couldn't really affect public political policy) who attempted and almost succeeded in changing the identity of Jerusalem.

Prohibiting Jewish access to the Western Wall according to Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, destroying Jewish graves on Mount of Olives, desecrating dozens of synagogues and shooting from the Old City ramparts at civilians - not to mention the ethnic cleansing of the Old City's Jewish Quarter in May 1948.

Shamir Salads, an Israeli company located in the West Bank, is marketing its products in Europe using a false address west of the Green Line, violating an agreement between Israel and the European Union.

Jewish activists last week gave the left-wing Gush Shalom movement a label from a Shamir Salads hummus tin they bought in The Hague. The tin has a Kiryat Ata address on it and a Tel Aviv area phone number.

The company's Internet site, however, says it can be contacted at Shamir Salads 2006 ltd., P.O.Box 5, Barkan industrial area...Gush Shalom accused Shamir Salads of deceiving both the European tax authorities and the consumers, who are not aware they are buying a product made in the settlements.

First of all, our right to reside in and build on the land is affirmed by the Mandate's Article 6 which guarantees "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use".

Pennsylvania Democrat Doug Pike, running for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, has asked J Street, the liberal-leaning Israel policy organization, to remove him from its endorsed list of candidates...Pike said that he was breaking with the group and returning the $6,000 that J Street had funneled to his campaign.

Citing J Street’s support for the Obama Administration’s opposition to recent Israeli settlement building in East Jerusalem, Pike told the paper that he found himself in disagreement with organization, which is widely seen as a dovish counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"Belatedly, I got a clearer sense of the important points where J Street looks at things differently than I look at things," Pike told the Jewish Exponent. "Also, people simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J Street that I agreed with them on everything. The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel's security."

J Street responded Thursday by launching a fundraising appeal slamming Pike for his move, which had generated more than $21,000 by Thursday evening.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor [said] someone shot a bullet through the window of his campaign office this week.

“I’ve received threats since I assumed elected office, not only because of my positions, but because I am Jewish,” Cantor said...Cantor said a bullet was shot through the window of his Richmond, Va., campaign office this week, and that he’s gotten threatening emails...

Earlier this month, a posting on the Foreign Policy website caused a firestorm by reporting that in January, Gen. David Petraeus “sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.”

According to the dispatch by Mark Perry (an advocate of talks with terrorist groups), Petraeus requested that the West Bank and Gaza be shifted to his Central Command (from European Command) so that the U.S. military could “be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.”

The report, which was presented as context for the recent blowup between the Obama administration and Israel, was quickly seized on by critics of Israel as confirmation of their view that U.S. support for Israel hinders America’s national security interests.

Soon, other blogs followed up by reporting that Petraeus echoed this sentiment in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. For instance, in a post titled, “Petraeus Makes His Move,” Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall wrote, “Now we have (Petraeus) saying it in his own words.”

But on Wednesday, Petraeus poured cold water on the controversy, explaining in detail why “all three items...were wrong, frankly.”

Petraeus made the remarks in response to a question by TAS at a press briefing held prior to a scheduled appearance St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Watch video of the full exchange here.)

To start with, Petraeus said he never requested to have the West Bank and Gaza added to his responsibilities as leader of the military’s Central Command. He said that “every year or so” commanders submit a plan that takes a geographic look at their areas of responsibility, and then there’s discussion about whether it would make sense to redraw the boundaries. For instance, he said, last time Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Jabuti were shifted to the Africa Command.

“Typically, there’s a question of should we ask to have Israel and Palestinian territories included, because what goes on there is obviously of enormous interest to the rest of the Central Command area, which is the bulk of the Arab world,” Petraeus said. However, he emphasized that it was “flat wrong” to claim he actually requested responsibility for the areas.

He said the report was “based on ‘bad gouges,’ as a sailor would say -- bad information.”

He also refuted the claim that he had sent a request to the White House, saying he “very rarely” sends things to the President, and only does so if he’s specifically asked.

In addition, he explained that the quote that bloggers attributed to his Senate testimony was actually plucked out of context from a report that Central Command had sent the Armed Services committee.

“There’s a 56-page document that we submitted that has a statement in it that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate and among those we listed the Mideast peace process,” he said. “We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don’t think that’s disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly.”

He also noted that there were plenty of other important factors that were mentioned in the report, including “a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which by the way deny Israel’s right to exist. There’s a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place.”

Petraeus continued, “So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all.”

In an effort to tamp down the controversy, Petraeus said, he spoke to Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and reassured him that the reports were inaccurate. He also said he sent Ashkenazi a blog post written by Max Boot of Commentary, which he said “astutely” picked apart the erroneous information that’s been floating around.

When asked about the claim that the perception that the U.S. is too reflexively pro-Israel puts American soldiers at risk, Petraeus said, “There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn’t say that at all.”

He said the only point was that moderate Arab leaders are worried about a lack of progress in the peace process.

“Their concern is that those who promote violence in Gaza and the West Bank will claim that because there’s no progress diplomatically, the only way they get progress is through violence,” he said. “And that’s their concern.”

Critics of Israel have tried to co-opt Petraeus as somebody who shared their view that U.S. support for Israel has become a liability for America. But in reality his only point is that lack of progress in resolving the conflict is one factor -- among many others -- that affects the dynamics of the region.

Sir, – Shlomo Sand’s response (Letters, March 12) to my review of the parody of historical scholarship he presents in his book illustrates perfectly the accuracy of my critique (February 26). In his letter, as in the book, he substitutes belligerence for argument, and misrepresents the research by others which he quarries. His letter is replete with irrelevance, innuendo and inaccuracy, but I shall confine myself here to a refutation of the personal attack he has chosen to make on my honesty as a reviewer. It would have been self-indulgent in a review of a book which includes so many untruths about other historians to have used the space to demolish his claims about me, since he refers explicitly to my work only in two footnotes (six lines in one footnote, and two lines in the other). But since he has now been foolish enough to challenge my integrity on the grounds that I did not discuss these references in my review of his book, I am more than happy to oblige here.

Sand asserts in his book and repeats in his letter the claim that my book Mission and Conversion (1994) betrays an “ethnocentric” approach to Jewish history, and that this approach arises from my having written part of it in Jerusalem, “the eternally united capital city of the Jewish ‘natio’”. Such geographical determinism would be weird in any case, but it is exceptionally bizarre in this instance. Sand has no evidence about my views on the present and future status of Jerusalem, but how he comes to claim that any of my work was carried out in Jerusalem is not difficult to guess, since on the first page of the preface I express thanks for hospitality, during the final stages of checking the typescript in 1993, to the Institute for Advanced Studies, which is based in Jerusalem. But if Sand had looked two paragraphs up on the same page, to the first lines of the preface, he would have seen that the book contains the “Wilde Lectures in Natural and Comparative Religion” as delivered in Oxford between January and March 1992, long before I was at the Institute. Does he want to say that, in the process of checking the final typescript, aberrant ideology must have crept into my interpretation of ancient history like an infection? Or that anyone prepared in 1992 to accept an invitation to take up a visiting fellowship in 1993 at Israel’s National Institute for Advanced Studies must already have been infected from afar?

Sand has also failed to notice that there is nothing whatever “ethnocentric” about the rest of the book, which is (unsurprisingly, given its title) a study of religious conversion. His assertion in his book that I attempt “to deny entirely the missionary aspect of Judaism” is a particularly breathtaking falsehood, since Chapter Seven of my book is devoted to tracing in some detail the evidence for the emergence of strong missionary ideas in rabbinic texts in late antiquity.

Well, did you know that Curious George is a Holocaust survivor. A new exhibit, opening Friday at the Illinois Holocaust Museum in Skokie, tells the remarkable story of his creators.

Story:

Artist H.A. Rey and his writer wife, Margret, were living in Paris when the Nazis occupied France in 1940. As German Jews, the Reys knew that in order to survive they had to get out. So they began a 9-day journey by bicycle to Lisbon, sleeping in barns and begging for help along the way.

Noreen Brand with the Illinois Holocaust Museum says the Reys left Paris penniless but, among the few possessions they stuffed into their knapsacks, were the drawings and original manuscript that would later become the Curious George series...

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Three times in the past 10 years, the Palestinians were presented with comprehensive peace proposals that would establish a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza, would put its internationally recognized capital in Arab Jerusalem, would offer a solidly funded, reasonable and dignified solution to the refugee issue, and would put an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all. First, it was Ehud Barak’s Camp David proposal. Then it was the Clinton Parameters. Then it was Olmert’s peace plan. Each time, confronted with an Israeli prime minister who was ready, pen in hand, to put his name on the dotted line and face the fury and discontent of part of his political constituency to take a risky peace gamble, Palestine’s acclaimed peace seekers — Yassir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas — walked away.

This history alone should encourage U.S. and European leaders to recognize that the burden of proof, when it comes to peace credentials and readiness for compromise, is on the Palestinian side, not the Israeli one. But history lessons and Aristotelian logic do not always intersect.

For one thing, the Palestinians have learned that every time they say no, sooner or later pressure will be brought to bear on Israel, and a new offer — better than the previous one — will be coming their way. Meanwhile, their tireless efforts to undermine, isolate, delegitimize, and demonize Israel in the international arena strengthen their bargaining position over time and enable them to expect more for less.

This, incidentally, offers at least a partial answer to David Hazony’s post from the other day, when my colleague was understandably puzzled about a growing support for a one-state solution among Palestinians. Why would a national movement give up its dream and settle for such a solution? After all, the Palestinians never seriously entertained this notion when a handful of Jewish intellectuals were toying with the idea in the 1930s and early 1940s. Brith Shalom and Ihud, the two small organizations that counted Yehuda Magnes and Martin Buber in their ranks, after all, not only could not get traction within the Yishuv — they never even got a single Arab leader interested in discussing their vision of a bi-national state for the Palestine Mandate, where Jews would forever be relegated to the role of a minority.

Clearly, the difference is that, back then, the Zionist movement was weak, its staying power in Palestine was questionable, its backing from Britain was waning, and its reservoir of support in Europe’s Jewish Diaspora under mortal threat of annihilation. Why would the Palestinians concede little when they believed — as they certainly did then — that they could have it all?

History offers some reckoning and what looked like a flight of fancy in the mid-1930s is more attractive today. A bi-national state is actually more promising than a nation-state, at least for Palestinian intellectuals, not so much because it would force them to renounce their aspirations but because it would keep their nationalist dream alive — a dream whereby, as Professor Fouad Ajami once so artfully put it, “there still lurks in the Palestinian and Arab imagination a view, depicted by the Moroccan historian Abdallah Laroui, that “on a certain day, everything would be obliterated and instantaneously reconstructed and the new inhabitants would leave, as if by magic, the land they had despoiled.” Arafat knew the power of this redemptive idea. He must have reasoned that it is safer to ride that idea, and that there will always be another day and another offer.”

A number of recent BBC reports on Israeli-American reports have featured statements by Mark Perry, alleging that leading US military officials, including General David Petraeus, had referred to Israeli policies as endangering the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I participated in two BBC radio programs on March 23 in which Perry's claims regarding Petraeus were featured. The first included a lengthy interview with Perry, and in the second, Danny Rubenstein, a journalist from Haaretz, quoted Perry spin on Petraeus.

However, in contrast to Perry's highly distorted version, in his testimony, Petraeus actually said: “A credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”

Perry's claims not withstanding, Petraeus carefully chosen words do not support the claim that the US military blames Israel for attacks against American soldiers, nor can this statement be construed to be a counterweight to the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC.

Indeed, Perry himself is a well-known self-promoter, lobbyist and, according to Harper's Magazine, a former advisor to Arafat. Until recently, he was the co-director of an advocacy group known as "Conflicts Forum", which encourages and engages in "encounters with political Islam - with both non-violent and armed resistance groups," including Hamas and Hezbollah. Perry has a long history of vocal opposition to Israel, while promoting the Palestinian narrative. But in contrast to Laura Rozen (Politico), and others reporting on this debate, the BBC neglected to inform its audience of Perry's background, which clearly colors his interpretations and allegations.

Now, Perry, like Walt and Mearsheimer, has targeted AIPAC and this is the source of his spin and tendentious interpretation of Petraeus' testimony. Perry's thesis that top US military officials blame Israeli policies and actions for the conflict in Afghanistan involving the Taliban, and the Sunni-Shia dimension of the violence in Iraq, is clearly absurd.

Archaeologists in Jerusalem are competing to unearth artifacts pointing to the ancient city's Jewish past, which are used to justify Israel's claim to all of it as the indivisible capital of the modern Jewish state.

But critics say some of "finds" are really just bending science to prove a "Biblical heritage" that is open to dispute.

"Archaeologists have given up many of their best practices in order to answer the continuing demands of mainly political actors," says Raphael Greenberg, an Israeli archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, who has worked in Jerusalem...

Greenberg is the odd-man out on this issue. His approach and claims have been shown to be not only politically-motivated but scientifically unsound. Ha-Ha-Haaretz promotes him and the radical loonie left has taken him up but that's it.

So, the foreign press, simply looking for a story, parades his views.

And there's the Arab who is angry:

...He names Eilat Mazar, of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who drew attention last month after excavating a wall she says was built by the biblical King Solomon in the 10th century BC.

"She doesn't give any archaeological context to her findings other than dating pottery shards," Nur al-Din charged. "The Bible should be put aside. It's not a history book."

But Mazar, scion of an illustrious Israeli archaeology dynasty, disputes that: "Excavating Jerusalem without knowing the Bible is impossible," she says. She said she would write a scientific report of her find following laboratory study.

Pointing out the freshly excavated wall, Mazar says the Bible offers a "core of reality": "We've got a fantastic 10th century fortification line that indicates a central, powerful regime," she said. "The Bible tells us there was such a king at this time, and his name was Solomon. Why ignore it?

"The question is if we can trace that core and prove it existed. Well, here it is."

Jane Goldman is Jewish. And English. Which is a potent problematic possibility.

She is the screenwriter of "Kick-Ass" described vaguely as a "comedy action adventure". The reports though have it that critics have highlighted its gratuitous violence and sexual swear words and insist it should be given an 18 certificate. Those critics even criticised the British Board of Film Classification over its decision not to enforce a higher age limit, saying it sets the wrong example to teenagers.

I asked Hashem to tell meWhy my house is such a mess.He asked if I'd been computeringAnd I had to answer "yes".He told me to get off my seatAnd tidy up the houseAnd so I started by cleaning offThe smudges on my mouse

I wiped and shined the topsideThat really did the trick !I was just admiring my handiworkI didn't mean to clickBut click I did, and oops !, I foundSuch an interesting Pesach siteThat I got so very absorbedI was into it ALL NIGHT !

Morning came and nothing changedMy house is still a threatMy mouse is strictly kosherWe'll just make Pesach on the net !

Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation...who was a special adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak — the current defense minister — in the late 1990s, said that a "vocal mobilized minority" of Jewish Americans most likely will try to make the dispute an election issue, but they will not be successful.

"The vast majority of American Jewish voters in November won't be basing their vote on this spat," he said. "A small minority for Jewish Democrats will raise it, and part of the Republican base will use it as one of many mobilizing vehicles, but those voters will be mobilized anyway — though, on margins, it could raise money for certain candidates."

This morning I had to be in Tel Aviv for a 9:30 AM appointment. So I decided that I would take the 6 AM bus in to Jerusalem, get a breakfast at Holy Bagel and then travel by bus to the Old New Central Bus Station in south Tel Aviv and walk for a quarter of an hour to the office where I had to be. But my plans went awry.

Despite grabbing a ride down the hill that would have brought me to Ariel, I didn't proceed as that would really have gotten me to Tel Aviv way too early. However, the Egged bus never made it. We saw it approach but it didn't come in. I was in a bind as the next bus was at 6:35 and I doubted if I could make it to Tel Aviv in time.

Five minutes later, the sister of my previous driver came by, headed for Bar Ilan University and in I jumped. We arrived at the Geha Junction at 7:10 and after figuring out which bus to take, I was in downtown Tel Aviv by 7:40 and alighted at Dizengoff Center. But it was empty and no cafe open as yet. I walked up Dizengoff but no luck.

So, I headed west along Frischman and the sea appeared in the distance:

Walking slowly, I began paying attention. If you read this storefront display on Frischman Street slowly, you'll grasp a phonetic problem of the French. The proper pronunciation of the real estate project is Shirat HaYam but I guess someone swallowed it:

When I told one of my neighbors I was going to Tel Aviv but would probably be there way too early for my appointment, he told me "so go to the beach". So, I got as far as the esplanade off HaYarkon Street:

Tel Aviv has a lot of missionary activity it appears. This sticker reads: Yeishu - Yshua - Yeshu'ah which translates as Jesus-Yeshua-Salvation (a play of words)

This storefront is clear:

This sticker I found funny: Returning the color to the Leftists and is signed the National Left which illustrates the problems the Israeli Left has:

I continued south, looking for a place to munch something. Here's one of the restored old houses of Tel Aviv in the 1920s behind Allenby opposite the junction with King George St.:

I reached the new section of Nachalat Binyamin which is a pedestrian mall looking for a breakfast place. This one was seemingly Kosher but closed.

It reads "kosher", the sign in the window, but the sign doesn't look kosher:

Open but empty:

Finally, way down on Allenby near Montifiore St. I found this place. Kosher. Open.Mirage.Coffee and cheese cake. 25 NIS.And a newspaper to read.Stayed to 9:20 and walked over, right on time.

About Me

American born, my wife and I moved to Israel in 1970. We have lived at Shiloh together with our family since 1981. I was in the Betar youth movement in the US and UK. I have worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, lectured at the Academy for National Studies 1977-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, I work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. I was a guest media columnist on media affairs for The Jerusalem Post, op-ed contributor to various journals and for six years had a weekly media show on Arutz 7 radio. I serve as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.